murmsk Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues. Marriage and unions. One is religious .... Marriage, and one is legal ..... unions. Yes you can have one without the other. Most societies have decided that unions between two people that forms a family unit deserves some rules with respect to finances and behavior. Some are in reference to children and some are not. I struggle to see a situation where where limiting this to only heterosexual couples wouldn't be discrimination. Marriage is religious and thus is a decision of the church. Our church for instance has decided that marriage is a covenant between two people who choose to merge their lives infront of God. Their genders are irrelevant. We marry people regardless of the legality of the union. With respect to logic . There really is very little logic associated with religion. To have a discussion about about the logic of a thought , there has to be come common facts that everyone agrees on. I see nothing that is universally agreed on. steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 To DCJ: It has been pointed out to me that a post I made the other day may have been "over the top." This one: Just because homosexuality is something that you don't understand or find squeamish doesn't mean they are freaks to be excluded from "normal" society. I was not aiming that statement at you, but trying to make a general statement about some. The fact that it could be aimed (as a weapon) ought to inform me that it was inappropriate. I apologize if my meaning became obscured by my rhetoric. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Our church for instance has decided that marriage is a covenant between two people who choose to merge their lives in front of God. Their genders are irrelevant. We marry people regardless of the legality of the union. As it should be. Marriage is only meaningful between two people (and / or not; with their G-d). NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The State's interest in marriage is mainly based on the benefits such unions bring to the society as a whole. Yes, the benefits being future taxpayers. Seriously. The state's interest in marriage is having future productive members of society who also care for the aging population. What else could it be? Certainly not the "pursuit of happiness." We don't involve the state every time happiness is our goal. The obvious retort would be, "How would a piece of paper establish happiness?" And costly things to the state like tax breaks require an overriding state interest. Further, the distinctive features of marriage (two person, permanent, exclusive, ...) that the state enforces make no sense if only "happiness" is the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Yes, the benefits being future taxpayers. Seriously. The state's interest in marriage is having future productive members of society who also care for the aging population. And, is it your contention that homosexual couples cannot care for their elderly parents? NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I find it hard to believe that the leg Yes, the benefits being future taxpayers. Seriously. The state's interest in marriage is having future productive members of society who also care for the aging population. What else could it be? Certainly not the "pursuit of happiness." We don't involve the state every time happiness is our goal. The obvious retort would be, "How would a piece of paper establish happiness?" And costly things to the state like tax breaks require an overriding state interest. Further, the distinctive features of marriage (two person, permanent, exclusive, ...) that the state enforces make no sense if only "happiness" is the reason. Surely we as a modern culture can realise that society isn't going to grind to a halt and have the wheels fall off becasue we allow a minority of the population (less than 5%) to share access to marriage licensing and rights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The subject of this thread is "The Sanctity of Marriage". So far, it seems to me that the debate has centered on the definition of "marriage" and the word "sanctity" has taken on the aspect of an assumption. Yet I think that the two terms need to be considered together. How does "sanctity" relate to "marriage"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 So far, it seems to me that the debate has centered on the definition of "marriage" and the word "sanctity" has taken on the aspect of an assumption. Too true, Myron. In fact when I commenced this thread I deliberately used that term because it is one that rolls off the tounge too easily and is oft quoted when any reference to marriage being a hetero-exclusive domain is made. sanc·ti·ty /ˈsæŋktɪti/ Show Spelled[sangk-ti-tee] Show IPA noun, plural sanc·ti·ties. 1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness. 2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple. 3. a sacred thing. Not a word about tax exemptions, state promotion of population growth, caring for the elderly, etc. To me, I don't think there is anything sacred about a marriage, unless you call two people who love each other committing to a life-long relationship, a sacred act. For me, calling marriage sacred is a little melodramatic. It's not that I don't think marriage is very special, rather I don't think the word sacred suits the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Let's not beat around the bush here. Any argument for banning gay marriage while at the same supporting heterosexual marriage is based solely on discrimination and bigotry. Any rationalizations to "justify" banning gay marriage whether based on religious or non-religious arguments are lies to make your hatred look prettier, like spraying expensive perfume over feces. Added by Moderator -------------------------------- This post exceeds what is considered being respectful of other views and violates our guidelines and forum etiquette. Poster is banned from further comments in this thread and any further such comments will result in automatic suspension. ------------------------------- JosephM (as Moderator) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murmsk Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Sometimes it is very difficult to discuss issues that involve discrimination without it getting personal since discrimination is itself is very very personal. Further Re-read MLK's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail " and substitute Gay(or any other discriminated group) for Negro and tell it doesn't ring true. On a happier note it was hard to look at the results of the last election and not feel that the ball for legalization of same-sex marriage isn't rolling down hill! steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 On a happier note it was hard to look at the results of the last election and not feel that the ball for legalization of same-sex marriage isn't rolling down hill! Too bad that it must be voted on. IMO, it should be a protected constitutional right. In any event, four for four ain't bad. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.